PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Hillsborough prosecutions
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 14:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial.

If you want people to give honest and complete evidence at an inquest in my opinion it needs to be with some understanding that evidence will not be turned back on you as soon as they have got everything they want. Instead the aim should be to prosecute senior figures in an organisation where it can be shown they knew, or should have knew about the failings. After all with the upcoming Grenfell enquiry why would any of the "shop floor" level employees give honest and potentially incriminating evidence if they know the CPS will stick the boot in with a manslaughter charge a year later.

If there is strong evidence of criminality at a junior level take them to trial and use the evidence from there.

Certainly justified going after the chief constable though. Zero chance they wouldn't have been signing off all the PR spin at the time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 14:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 17:15
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 15:01) *
Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial.

No witness is required to incriminate themselves - Rule 22 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 18:43
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Indeed but it seems a bit counterintuitive to spend £millions to "get to the bottom" of something if you concurrently want all your witnesses to be worried about putting their foot in it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 20:24
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 19:43) *
Indeed but it seems a bit counterintuitive to spend £millions to "get to the bottom" of something if you concurrently want all your witnesses to be worried about putting their foot in it.

I tend to keep my views on it to myself.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 21:21
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 15:01) *
Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial.

If you want people to give honest and complete evidence at an inquest in my opinion it needs to be with some understanding that evidence will not be turned back on you as soon as they have got everything they want. Instead the aim should be to prosecute senior figures in an organisation where it can be shown they knew, or should have knew about the failings. After all with the upcoming Grenfell enquiry why would any of the "shop floor" level employees give honest and potentially incriminating evidence if they know the CPS will stick the boot in with a manslaughter charge a year later.

If there is strong evidence of criminality at a junior level take them to trial and use the evidence from there.

Certainly justified going after the chief constable though. Zero chance they wouldn't have been signing off all the PR spin at the time.

You mention Grenfell and having watched two members of Fire and Rescue giving evidence ( one in tears) I sincerely hope that its not going to turn in to a situation with the Fire Service ( and Police and Ambulance) having the finger of blame pointed at them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 22:06
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



I think with Grenfell they are reasonably safe because it will be better to put the boot into

- Bastard landlords who don't spend money on things.
- Anyone from an organisation with "Kensington and Chelsea" in the name.
- Bastard pretentious architects.
- Bastard DIY products that sound great in B&Q but actually end up burning down your house when you get them home.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 08:45
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 22:21) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 15:01) *
Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial.

If you want people to give honest and complete evidence at an inquest in my opinion it needs to be with some understanding that evidence will not be turned back on you as soon as they have got everything they want. Instead the aim should be to prosecute senior figures in an organisation where it can be shown they knew, or should have knew about the failings. After all with the upcoming Grenfell enquiry why would any of the "shop floor" level employees give honest and potentially incriminating evidence if they know the CPS will stick the boot in with a manslaughter charge a year later.

If there is strong evidence of criminality at a junior level take them to trial and use the evidence from there.

Certainly justified going after the chief constable though. Zero chance they wouldn't have been signing off all the PR spin at the time.

You mention Grenfell and having watched two members of Fire and Rescue giving evidence ( one in tears) I sincerely hope that its not going to turn in to a situation with the Fire Service ( and Police and Ambulance) having the finger of blame pointed at them.

It appears that by the time they made their mistakes (and they did make mistakes) the die had already been cast, due to the flammable cladding on the building. If the inquiry does not determine who was responsible for that cladding being on that building it will have served no practical purpose.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 13:10
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 09:45) *
......….It appears that by the time they made their mistakes (and they did make mistakes) the die had already been cast, due to the flammable cladding on the building. If the inquiry does not determine who was responsible for that cladding being on that building it will have served no practical purpose.

--Churchmouse


That's my take on Grenfell.
Someone chose the cladding. Which may have been acceptable under UK laws but isn't elsewhere in the world on high rise buildings.
That choice is the root cause of all else that happened.


On Hillsborough, I'm struggling to see gross negligence re the deaths.
Lots of issues with the aftermath and cover ups but if I understand it correctly, there was a whole series of things that conspired to cause the tragedy.
Terraces, lack or not enough barriers on the terraces, fans pushing to get in, crowd fences to mention a few.
Yes, opening the gate let in a flood but was that gross negligence or an error of judgement ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 14:13
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 22:21) *
You mention Grenfell and having watched two members of Fire and Rescue giving evidence ( one in tears) I sincerely hope that its not going to turn in to a situation with the Fire Service ( and Police and Ambulance) having the finger of blame pointed at them.

I think all the questions so far have been fair, especially in relation to the training and policies. The answers we have on the record to date mean that the higher ups can later be called to explain why the officers on the grounds had not received any training as to when, for example, they should abandon the stay put policy (which clearly is a serious issue that needs to be fully explored).


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
122basy
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 16:48
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,721



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 14:10) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 09:45) *
......….It appears that by the time they made their mistakes (and they did make mistakes) the die had already been cast, due to the flammable cladding on the building. If the inquiry does not determine who was responsible for that cladding being on that building it will have served no practical purpose.

--Churchmouse


That's my take on Grenfell.
Someone chose the cladding. Which may have been acceptable under UK laws but isn't elsewhere in the world on high rise buildings.
That choice is the root cause of all else that happened.


On Hillsborough, I'm struggling to see gross negligence re the deaths.
Lots of issues with the aftermath and cover ups but if I understand it correctly, there was a whole series of things that conspired to cause the tragedy.
Terraces, lack or not enough barriers on the terraces, fans pushing to get in, crowd fences to mention a few.
Yes, opening the gate let in a flood but was that gross negligence or an error of judgement ?

Apparently there was nobody pushing to get in at all. That has therefore been erased from all possible mention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 16:53
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 17:48) *
.........Apparently there was nobody pushing to get in at all. That has therefore been erased from all possible mention.


Yeah...right !


While I always felt that the fans being blamed alone was one sided and wrong, if no one was pushing, WTF caused the crush ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 20:56
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 17:53) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 17:48) *
.........Apparently there was nobody pushing to get in at all. That has therefore been erased from all possible mention.


Yeah...right !


While I always felt that the fans being blamed alone was one sided and wrong, if no one was pushing, WTF caused the crush ?

It's fairly accepted that if you have a large crowd you need crowd management no matter what the venue.

If you've ever been to the Leppings Lane end in Hillsborough you'll know the first thing you see as you walk in is the tunnel to that pen. It is the natural path, and naturally as a football fan you want to see the pitch.

The suggestion is that opening the gate wasn't in itself a mistake, but that when it had been done previously police and/or stewards had been used to direct fans to side pens, and the decision to direct staff should have been done by Duckenfield when opening the gate.

The fact he didn't do that was obviously part inexperience and part poor ground design that it would even be needed. If you walk into a modern stadium the whole thing is designed like a colander to filter crowds so that this could never occur. That said, if you take charge of a crappy venue you know your are in the firing line if anything goes wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 2 Jul 2018 - 08:40
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 09:45) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 22:21) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 15:01) *
Got to say much as it is evident the police made big mistakes both on the day and subsequently, I find it a bit concerning with this "tie your own noose" at inquest and then use it to hang you at trial.

If you want people to give honest and complete evidence at an inquest in my opinion it needs to be with some understanding that evidence will not be turned back on you as soon as they have got everything they want. Instead the aim should be to prosecute senior figures in an organisation where it can be shown they knew, or should have knew about the failings. After all with the upcoming Grenfell enquiry why would any of the "shop floor" level employees give honest and potentially incriminating evidence if they know the CPS will stick the boot in with a manslaughter charge a year later.

If there is strong evidence of criminality at a junior level take them to trial and use the evidence from there.

Certainly justified going after the chief constable though. Zero chance they wouldn't have been signing off all the PR spin at the time.

You mention Grenfell and having watched two members of Fire and Rescue giving evidence ( one in tears) I sincerely hope that its not going to turn in to a situation with the Fire Service ( and Police and Ambulance) having the finger of blame pointed at them.

It appears that by the time they made their mistakes (and they did make mistakes) the die had already been cast, due to the flammable cladding on the building. If the inquiry does not determine who was responsible for that cladding being on that building it will have served no practical purpose.

--Churchmouse

I'm going to be meeting the chemist that originally developed the filling material this week

She has a list of questions that the inquiry should be answering
As far as I know, she hasn't been invited - will have to ask why
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:59
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here